Fun Science Facts

[Slim]

Atoms didn't exist in the universe for the first 300,000+ years.  Protons, neutrons and electrons existed before the 300,000+ year point, but the universe was too hot for them to stick together.

[The Picnic Wasp]

Atoms didn't exist in the universe for the first 300,000+ years.  Protons, neutrons and electrons existed before the 300,000+ year point, but the universe was too hot for them to stick together.

I assume dark matter was all around at that time too. Did it always exist? Not a direct question for you, James.

[Slim]

I'm not a physicist but I've always been a bit sceptical about dark matter, it always seems to me like something that's been made up to make the maths work.

Actually I think I'll raise that very objection with an AI. OK I did, this was its summary (Gemini here)

Highslide Image Viewer

As to your question, ChatGPT says this:

Highslide Image Viewer

[The Picnic Wasp]

Fascinatingly frustrating that despite all our science advancing at an alarming rate, our species is highly unlikely to answer any more than a small fraction of the remaining mystery.

This has always pointed me in a certain direction of thinking that I no longer dare to mention on here. I feel lonely enough these days.

[Slim]

Your direction of thinking doesn't answer the question, it only introduces another one. It moves it. There's still no rational explanation to the question "why is there something, instead of nothing" whether the "something" is "a god" or "the universe".

[The Picnic Wasp]

Your direction of thinking doesn't answer the question, it only introduces another one. It moves it. There's still no rational explanation to the question "why is there something, instead of nothing" whether the "something" is "a god" or "the universe".

Good points but more lightheartedly in the words of Neil, "I still cling to hope" that something like dark matter, points to the existence of dimensionless possibilities. I'm quite content to realise that we're not here to comprehend everything as advanced primates, and that, in a way, organised religions remove one of tools of many scientists thinking as it is so objectionable to them. Numbers can't decipher something from nothing so a door is slammed shut.

[Slim]

Not sure I understand your point about tools being removed. Science doesn't slam doors shut, it just ignores hypotheses without evidence or supporting logic. Religion has nothing whatever to offer serious understanding of the world around us, it only ever impedes it. Whether scientifically or philosophically, it has just never offered a reason to be taken seriously.

[The Picnic Wasp]

I did struggle to get the correct words of expression for my feelings on this. Maybe because so many of the world's religions simply cancel each other out, scientists naturally put a line through them all. 

I totally get your point in all of this, I just think that even scientists who require, logic, numbers and provable facts in their vocations, as a sign of their obvious intellect, should nod to the possibility, however how infinitely small, of some higher power being responsible for things they will probably never be able to achieve through science before our species disappears.

I would never call their stance arrogant. I admire the wonders of their work and achievements too much for that but I'm surprised given the awe inspiring nature of the universe(s) that such a tiny percentage of them admit to a slight spiritual leaning. I think I just repeated my earlier post.

[Nick]

But that's not how science works.. you can't just hope that what you want to believe is the truth or has validity.

[The Picnic Wasp]

But that's not how science works.. you can't just hope that what you want to believe is the truth or has validity.

Some theoretical physics work has been quite like that. One day they're groundbreaking, later discarded. All without an actual conclusive discovery. They probably hoped they were right at the time. It's hope that keeps us going.

[Slim]

I did struggle to get the correct words of expression for my feelings on this. Maybe because so many of the world's religions simply cancel each other out, scientists naturally put a line through them all.

It's not the job of science or scientists to give them a moment's consideration, any more than it's the job of an astronomer to prepare your horoscope.

[The Picnic Wasp]

I did struggle to get the correct words of expression for my feelings on this. Maybe because so many of the world's religions simply cancel each other out, scientists naturally put a line through them all.

It's not the job of science or scientists to give them a moment's consideration, any more than it's the job of an astronomer to prepare your horoscope.

Agreed. It's certainly not in their job description and why should it be. I probably couldn't find the article again but it indicated that a significant percentage of scientists have or have had religious or spiritual beliefs.

My point is that they are human and so their minds are multifaceted.

I've steered this well off the original topic intention but it kicked off those thoughts about the mysteries that I often have and which are so fascinating to me. I don't rule anything out as I await the answers. That's why I consider other dimensions and existence without dimensional limitations.

[Slim]

I'm glad it provoked an interesting discussion.

[Slim]

It's possible that the Universe has a minimum distance, a shortest possible distance by any conceivable real life measure.

The most likely candidate for this distance is called the Planck Length, and it is approximately 1.6×10^−35 metres. It's a number derived from three fundamental constants: gravity, the speed of light and the Planck constant, which is the ratio that determines how much energy a photon contains based on its frequency.

There are mathematical reasons to believe this, which I don't understand. But if true, then space is not "smooth" or continuous - it's granular; pixellated - each pixel being the Planck Length in size.

The Planck Length is mind-bogglingly tiny - if you were to inflate an atom to the size of the known universe, it would be roughly the height of a tree. A hydrogen atom is 10 trillion trillions of Planck Lengths wide.

So if you imagine an atom moving through space, it's not moving continuously - it's moving in discrete, tiny chunks, like an object moving across a high definition screen which really exists as a set of pixels. And while it's possible to describe a smaller distance - say 0.8×10^−35 metres, half the Planck Length - it's a distance that can only exist in theory, never in reality. An example of maths going where reality can't.

[Matt2112]

One 18" pizza has more pizza than two 12" pizzas (by about 12.5%).